Enhancing the Effectiveness of Air Defense Systems through Simulation Analysis

Air Defense Systems contain high-value assets that are
expected to fulfill their mission for several years - in many cases,
even decades - while operating in a fast-changing, technology-driven
environment. Thus, it is paramount that decision-makers can assess
how effective an Air Defense System is in the face of new developing
threats, as well as to identify the bottlenecks that could jeopardize
the security of the airspace of a country. Given the broad extent
of activities and the great variety of assets necessary to achieve
the strategic objectives, a systems approach was taken in order to
delineate the core requirements and the physical architecture of an
Air Defense System. Then, value-focused thinking helped in the
definition of the measures of effectiveness. Furthermore, analytical
methods were applied to create a formal structure that preliminarily
assesses such measures. To validate the proposed methodology, a
powerful simulation was also used to determine the measures of
effectiveness, now in more complex environments that incorporate
both uncertainty and multiple interactions of the entities. The results
regarding the validity of this methodology suggest that the approach
can support decisions aimed at enhancing the capabilities of Air
Defense Systems. In conclusion, this paper sheds some light on
how consolidated approaches of Systems Engineering and Operations
Research can be used as valid techniques for solving problems
regarding a complex and yet vital matter.

Authors:



References:
[1] NRC, Aging Avionics in Military Aircraft. National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, May 2001.
[2] G. Niebergall, “Air Sovereignty Alert: America’s Security Blanket:,”
tech. rep., Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, Apr.
2009.
[3] USA, “JP 3-01: Countering Air and Missile Threats,” 2017.
[4] USA, “Missile Defense Review,” 2019.
[5] P. F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practises. New
York: Harper Business, 1985.
[6] W. L. Perry, “Linking Systems Performance and Operational
Effectiveness,” in Methods for Conducting Military Operational
Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 657–684, Mar. 2008.
[7] SEBOK, “Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge.”
[8] C. S. Wasson, System Engineering Analysis, Design, and Development:
Concepts, Principles, and Practices. Wiley series in systems engineering
and management, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc, second
edition ed., 2016.
[9] J. Dick, E. Hull, and K. Jackson, Requirements Engineering. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer, fourth edition ed., 2017.
[10] K. A. Yost, “Requirements,” in Methods for Conducting Military
Operational Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 379–444, Mar. 2008.
[11] D. M. Buede and W. D. Miller, The Engineering Design of Systems:
Models and Method. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, third edition ed.,
2016.
[12] T. P. Lewis, D. A. Fulk, and G. Castro, “Analysis Support for
Acquisition: Part I: Analysis of Alternatives,” in Military Operations
Research, vol. 13, pp. 174–197, Mar. 2008.
[13] R. L. Keeney, “Applying Value-Focused Thinking,” in Military
Operations Research, vol. 13, pp. 7–17, Mar. 2008.
[14] G. S. Parnell, “Value-focused Thinking,” in Methods for Conducting
Military Operational Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 619–656, Mar. 2008.
[15] A. M. Law, Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill series in
industrial engineering and management science, Dubuque: McGraw-Hill
Education, fifth edition ed., 2013.
[16] VT-MAK, “MAK VR-Forces.”